list_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details like directories ending with '/', but does not mention recursion depth, hidden files, or explicitly state it is a read-only operation. Adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds scope and return format detail. Each sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage scope, and return format. However, it fails to specify whether the listing is recursive (direct children only) or what ordering/sorting is applied, which is relevant given sibling tools. This leaves a minor completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description covers 100% of the single 'path' parameter, including its relative-to-root semantics and that empty means root. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists files and folders in the Obsidian vault, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes it can list the root or a specific folder, which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'list_all_files', so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context by saying it can list the root directory or a specific folder, implying when to use it. But it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_all_files' or 'get_vault_structure'. Usage is implied rather than clearly delineated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.